PC 11/09/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

r Staff is recommending to prewne the site to a PUD designation with a list of uses that matches the General Plan designations. Prewning does require a review of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff is relying on the previous environmental impact report made in conjunction with the General Plan and feels that a Negative Declaration can be found for this site. Mr. Swift noted the Commission had received letters from the City Attorney's Office of the City and County of San Francisco and from the Local Agency Formation Commission. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Noreen Ambrose, City Attorney's Office, 1390 Market Street, San Francisco. She noted that although it may be unusual for a property owner to seek an Environmental Impact Review when staff is seeking a negative declaration, she feels it is appropriate in this circumstance. She feels it is not in Pleasanton's nor San Francisco's interest to seek a negative declaration because there is no support for such. She feels it is undefensible to seek a negative declaration on a prezoning where no development is proposed when it is clear that San Francisco has a developmental plan and an application with the County. She noted that the Pleasanton Planning Director has provided 20 issues for Alameda County to study with respect to this property. Ms. Ambrose feels it would be to Pleasanton's benefit to be a part of the environment impact study in conjunction with the County. Mr. Swift noted the issues presented to the County for review would not be issues if the land was annexed to Pleasanton, such as sewage treatment, water supply, etc. He also advised that the application before the County is also a specific plan, a development agreement, and a tentative map. Therefore, an environmental impact review is needed. What is before the Commission now is a prezoning without a development plan. Gloria Davis, 2354 Meadowlark Drive, represented the homeowners association of Windsor, which is directly across Bernal from the subject property. She inquired what might happen if the land is not annexed. She was advised that the City would have no control over the development if the land is not annexed, and Mr. Beougher advised she should contact Alameda County for more information. Mr. Beougher outlined to Ms. Davis the negative declaration process. Omar Scott, 7806 Donners Court, inquired if the plan in the staff report is what San Francisco is proposing. Staff advised that it is the current General Plan proposal. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes Page IS November 9, 1994